SV: M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Bob Malecki]

Nice post except for this! 

>I don't reckon you do
> that with programmes and small revolutionary parties (not in the west,
> anyway).  You do that with strategy, not tactics.  Compromise, not purity. 
> Uniting on basic principles, not dismembering ourselves on arcana.  Analysis
> of the historical moment and measured publicity.  Not grand metanarratives
> and stirring calls to arms.  Gradualism.  Not breathless appeals to the
> decisive revolutionary moment.

Well we had two World Wars. The first "compromise" was the demise of the second 
international. The second was the demise of the third international. Um what kind of 
"strategical" compromise do you have in mind? The only thing I see viable will be a 
new regroupment along the lines of Zimmerwald..And the way the left has acted recently 
it will take another Zimmerwald to seperate the wheat from the straw.

Already the first shots have been fired in the next round and the left failed 
miserably. 
The other question related to this is the "left" and the question of the SU where many 
still consider it a degenerated workers state or some kind of third world country 
rather then and ex degenerated workers state which has undergone a capitalist counter 
revolution with clear imperialist wannabe intentions. Unfortunately this includes many 
who claim to be "Trotskyist".

So a big regroupment of the whole left certainly will be neccessary and will include 
quite a lot of people with quite different backgrounds. Naturally in this unity will 
be quite different opinions of what and where we are doing and going. But certain 
united front formations will certainly develop out of the coming events. Hopefully 
along the lines of the main enemy is at home! 

Interesting that you take up China because the rubicon lies in if the Chinese 
bureaucracy uses its "one China two systems" theory to actually reunite with the 
compradore Chinese bourgeouisie. If they do it will put into question Japanese 
imperialism as the powerhouse in Asia. And naturally a victorious capitalist counter 
revolution in China leaves a number of options for Japan. But one thing is sure it 
will increase inter imperialist rivalry to white heat!

Finally one thing that bothers me is that a nuclear confrontation between one or more 
imperialist powers might throw us back to the stone age..And the we will really have a 
tribal existence!

Bob




 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Bob,

>I say that the destruction of the Soviet Union and the deformed workers
states can not be absorbed into post war >capitalist economic
politics. That this event more then anything else is taking us to the
brink.One thing for the capitalist >to load the past periodical crisis's on
the poeble a whole other ballgame when it comes to establishing "free"
markets in >the east.

I agree, as I think I said back in '97 when things first went perar-shaped
in Russia and SE Asia, that capitalism had a hard time of it sucking in a
few hundred million extra cheap workers in conditions already marked by
excess capacity.  The productive capital that was burned was erstwhile
eastern bloc stuff and SE Asian stuff - and it was the Wall Streeters who
applied the match through deliberate currency destructions.  Wall St now
owns a lot of the productive capital left in these places, having picked it
up at ten cents in the dollar.  China's assimilation will be harder still,
but with an intelligent and gradual destruction of half a billion
livelihoods or so, it can be done.  Healthy capitalism and unhealthy people
- hand in hand.  Of course, half a billion life-long quasi-communists
suddenly in desperate straits is a social problem for which there is no
ready fix, and China could simply burst apart at the seams.  Possibly, the
recent bouts of demonising cults and pointing Kalashnikovs at Taiwan might
be read as a government attempting to unite the insecure masses against a
publicly constructed common foe - that's worked before.  Risky game with
high stakes, though.  And Russia could go a long way in any direction very
quickly, too.  It's a bloody disgrace how superficial has been the coverage
of the wholesale human destruction going on throughout Russia (if life
expectancies are plummetting, I reckon you've got a pretty good indicator on
your hands of something big).

>Actually what did these billions do? A lot of it went to create and shore
up bourgeois regimes in the making but hardly >will be helpful in the
longrun to stop the clock from heading in the direction that people like
Lenin and Trotstsky >desdcribed as the death gnall of the
capitalist/imperialist system.

The contradictions are ever more bold in profile, but most of the world's
coercive power resides very neatly with the world's financial strength and
interests, too (eg. America has so far found it pretty easy to enlist the
tacit or active support of others for its military adventures - eg. Iraq and
Yugoslavia).  And popular reactions to this have been more generally
theocratic and/or nationalistic in character - not internationalist, and not
particularly socialist.  People seek a rallying identity already entrenched
in their self-concept and world view - for many that is their pantheon,
their tribe, their race or their nation.  China and Russia are interesting
here, as at least the words and aspirations of socialism do dwell in their
scrawny bosoms.

>Do you really think that capitalism/imperialism can solve the future of
mankind? Or are we heading towards the cliff. I >mean there ain't no way we
can live in the never never land of plenty for all for ever.It took the
dismantling of the   >welfare states and many of the reforms fought for
to fianance the present operation and where we are now. But where >are all
the billions gonna come from to feed the enormous blackhole in the future.
And there are plenty of nationalists  >and fascist demogues waiting in the
wings to take over when the house of cards falls down.

Exactly, Bob.  Plenty.

>Seems to me that you have become the Guru of the soft intellectual left who
find it so comfortable in the present order >of things. Well I got a hunch
that the house of cards you are building is gonna get a rude awakening. But
thge left that >supports your ideas will unfortunately wind up screaming for
their own bourgeoisie to save them I'm afraid.

I reckon you're catching more than Doug's throwing here, Bob.  And hasn't
Doug got a point about the 'late capitalism' history of first-world
left-turns?  We started doing it tough in the seventies, and it was then the
left started to expire on the vine.  I do believe a first-world financial
(and consequently social) crisis is built into our currently exultantly
irrsesponsible multiplication of digital wealth - where M1 seems magically
to become M2 overnight without any reference whatsoever to the
C-in-the-middle - especially apparent is the outrageous assumptions about
production and profits in the near future.  I don't reckon the relatively
sound Europe or the possibly rejuvenated Japan could withstand such a crisis
at all.  But I don't know what (chaotically generated?) event will start the
dramatic debt crunch I expect.  It would have to be quite rapid and intense
for the kinds of amelioration measures Doug describes not to do their thing,
though.  

I also reckon those hundreds of billions who are paying the price for the
dramatic redistribution of 

Re: M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Doug Henwood]

Gerald Levy wrote:

>Of course, I note that you side-stepped the whole issue of _LM_ -- a
>magazine that I recall you were rather sharply critical of in the past.
>Is my memory failing me or isn't that correct? What happened to change
>your perspective on _LM_?

I don't agree with lots of things in LM, and I haven't changed my 
mind on any of that. But I'll write for pretty much anyone who lets 
me say what I want, and LM let me say exactly what I want. I also 
think James Heartfield, the LM editor who asked me to do the piece, 
is a very smart guy and a very good writer, and even when I disagree 
with him, I admire those virtues. So, basically, nothing happened to 
change my perspective.

Doug



 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Gerald Levy]

G'day Rob,

>  A good article called 'In
> Love With Disaster', which accuses capitalism of producing poverty alongside
> wealth, alienation for all, periodic destructions of productive capital,

I didn't get the sense that this was what the article was about ...

> and, of late, some lefties who content themselves with predicting imminent
> systemic self-destruction without lending themselves the credibility of
> first producing detailed and coherent explanations for our apparently
> expansionary times hitherto, or explaining why hard times should indeed turn
> society left when the evidence since the war has been that such social
> shifts have attended the good times more often than the bad.

Rather, this is the major thrust of his article.
 
> Now this might well be an outrageous load of bollocks, Jerry 

Not at all. Indeed, I think it is a valid criticism of many on the Left
who seem to think that every decline in GDP, increase in the trade
deficit, the rate of unemployment, or even daily declines in stock prices
is an indication of impending doom. Not only is such a perspective wrong
on the face of it, but it is rather a odd perspective for Marxists to hope
for and rejoice over the possibility of another depression -- a depression
in which the lives of millions of working people would be grievously
harmed. It, indeed, reminds me of the pessimism of Raptis (Pablo) who
believed that socialism would arise out of the ashes of thermonuclear
destruction. 

> - all the more
> likely for the fact that I find it utterly compelling - but it's all we have
> to go with  while we await your own analysis and guidance.  Time to step
> forth, Augustus-like to your Philippi, Jerry!  What do YOU reckon?

So, it is "all" we have to go on, is it? C'mon, Rob: even Doug might
appreciate a more critical stance towards his writing.

My perspective, in a nutshell, is that while there is a lot of validity to
what he writes, Doug bends the stick too much in the opposite direction.
Thus, he replaces the "optimism" of those who anticipate an immanent
depression, with the pessimism that the capitalist state has shown that it
can overcome crises and maintain social-economic stability. The
"ultra-leftism" of the former and the reformism of the later are opposite
sides of the same coin. To overcome this, what is needed is a *theory* 
that explains late capitalism rather than a set of empirical/historical
observations *alone*. And, Doug's article is woefully lacking in giving
any theoretical explanation for this subject.

> Here's the article (as I submitted it - there may have been minor 
> editing changes in the published version, but I didn't do a 
> word-by-word comparison). Judge for yourself.

Thanks for making the article available: I've read a lot worse.

Of course, I note that you side-stepped the whole issue of _LM_ -- a
magazine that I recall you were rather sharply critical of in the past. 
Is my memory failing me or isn't that correct? What happened to change
your perspective on _LM_?

Now that you have taken on the role of being a tragic-comic figure, you
are almost likeable.  You would be still more likeable if you weren't an
empiricist.

Jerry

 > - 
> 
> In love with disaster
> by Doug Henwood
> 
> 
> Back in 1992, I wrote an article in the newsletter I edit 
>  saying 
> that it was pretty likely that the U.S. financial system wasn't going 
> to implode. After the roaring eighties peaked around 1989, the U.S. 
> economy fell into stagnation, and bank failures and bankruptcies 
> reached frightening proportions. Since by most ordinary measures, the 
> financial structure was as bad as or worse than 1929's, it wasn't at 
> all alarmist to fear the worst.
> 
> But George Bush's government came up with hundreds of billions (no 
> one really knows for sure how many) to save the wrecked savings & 
> loan industry, and Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve pushed real 
> interest rates down to 0% and kept them there for years. State action 
> saved capital from itself, and I thought it was time to say that 
> there would be no second Depression. Saying so evoked a fair amount 
> of mail and phone calls, ranging from those expressing concern about 
> my sanity to those expressing outright hostility.
> 
> Last fall, I said pretty much the same thing about the Asian 
> financial crisis - that, thanks to state intervention (mainly an 
> indulgent U.S. Fed and the ministrations of the IMF), the worst of 
> the 1997-98 melodrama was probably behind us. I made it clear that I 
> didn't think the worst was over for the workers and peasants of Asia 
> - - just that the systemic meltdown of the global financial system was 
> looking pretty unlikely. This too evoked reactions similar to 1992's 
> all clear.
> 
> I recount this not to brag about my prescience; I've made lots of bad 
> calls in my life too, though they're a lot less pleasant to think 
> about. One of those ba

M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Jerry,

>In a startling plot twist, Doug H, it seems, -- has written an article
>for _LM_. 

Yeah, a timely warning to lefties to avoid making public clutzes of
themselves by screaming fire every time a percentage point comes off the Dow
(sage advice I keep ignoring to my cost, btw).  A good article called 'In
Love With Disaster', which accuses capitalism of producing poverty alongside
wealth, alienation for all, periodic destructions of productive capital,
and, of late, some lefties who content themselves with predicting imminent
systemic self-destruction without lending themselves the credibility of
first producing detailed and coherent explanations for our apparently
expansionary times hitherto, or explaining why hard times should indeed turn
society left when the evidence since the war has been that such social
shifts have attended the good times more often than the bad.

Now this might well be an outrageous load of bollocks, Jerry - all the more
likely for the fact that I find it utterly compelling - but it's all we have
to go with  while we await your own analysis and guidance.  Time to step
forth, Augustus-like to your Philippi, Jerry!  What do YOU reckon?

>Now it seems that Doug has been cast in the role of Julius Caesar. Doug
turns to his former friend and says:
>"Et tu Brutae?" 

Slipping a quick one into the ribs ere the Ides of November, eh?  

Cheers,
Rob.




 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---